Skip to main content

Bounce Of Cheque Issued For Insurance Premium Is Breach Of Promise, Insurance Company Not Bound To Indemnify Owner Of Offending Vehicle


In FIRST APPEAL NO.1839 OF 2018, SBI Insurance Company vs Madhubala & Others, a first appeal filed by SBI Insurance Company against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal wherein the appellants were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 11,93,000 to the family of a carpenter who died in an accident with a bus that was being driven on the wrong side.

The owner and driver of the offending bus did not resist the claim petition. The insurer challenged the award only on the ground that because the policies of insurance issued by the insurer of the offending
vehicle were cancelled by the Insurance Company after the occurrence of the incident on account of bouncing of the cheques issued towards premium, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company has right to recover the compensation from owner of offending vehicle, paid to the claimants, towards satisfaction of the award passed by the Tribunal.

The owner of the vehicle resisted the contention of the insurer on the grounds that on the date of accident  neither the cheque of premium fees issued by the owner of vehicle was dishonoured, nor the policy of insurance was cancelled by the insurer of the offending bus. He submitted that after occurrence of the accident for the first time, the Insurance Company issued letter to the owner on and thereby cancelled the policy of insurance, therefore as the policy of insurance was subsisting on the date of accident the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the third party. Therefore, the insurer of the offending vehicle has no right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

The Bombay High Court held that the contract of insurance in between owner of the offending vehicle and insurer, includes reciprocal promises by both the parties. By issuing cheque of amount of premium, the owner of the offending vehicle promises to pay consideration for contract of indemnity and in lieu of consideration of premium amount, the insurer promises to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle in case of liability of owner to pay compensation for accident. Thus, when on account of bouncing of cheque issued towards premium of policy of insurance, the owner of the offending vehicle committed breach of his promise, the insurer of the offending vehicle is not bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. In the circumstances, as insurer was liable to pay compensation to the third party, it has right to recover the paid amount from owner of the offending vehicle.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more